Evidence-Based Effective Teaching Behaviors for Complex Psychomotor Skills Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although the research to operating room teaching is extensive, evidence relating surgical teachers’ behaviors to trainees’ objective complex psychomotor skills acquisition is limited. We aimed to identify objectively evidence-based teaching behaviors in hands-on training associated with increased complex psychomotor skills in surgical and non-surgical trainees. Methods: The MEDLINE, PsycINFO and ERIC databases were searched for relevant papers. Due to comparable training characteristics to complex surgical skill acquisition, papers on sports and music training were also included. Paper screening took place after training sessions with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was determined. Data were extracted and the quality of studies was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education (NOS-E). Results: 18,337 references were identified. Seven studies were included. Teaching behaviors shown to improve trainees’ objective skills acquisition included feedback, instruction, active trainee involvement and demonstrations. Feedback and instruction with an external focus on the task and effect were supported by the strongest evidence. There was significant evidence regarding negative effects of harshly criticizing and belittling teaching behaviors. The data quality and evidence for most teaching behaviors were weak with low impact levels. Discussion: Feedback, instruction, active trainee involvement and demonstrations are important for the hands-on teaching of complex psychomotor skills. However, strong evidence supporting their effectiveness is lacking. Future research should be directed on investigating the relationship between clearly defined teaching behaviors and the objective acquisition of complex skills in surgical trainees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".